Template talk:Infobox outbreak

Adapt for all outbreaks?

Hello! Right now this appears to be somewhat virus-specific since it has a virus_strain parameter. Could we broaden it so that it could take pathogen_strain, or a separate virus vs bacteria vs parasite strain? This would allow us to use the template for lots of outbreaks, which would be nice. As it is, there isn't any very good outbreak template I could find. Thanks!Ajpolino (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Ajpolino, done. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition of "arrival date"

The intended meaning of "arrival date" seems to be the date of the first confirmed/reported case. However, this is rarely the time when a disease actually entered a territory, which can happen (much) earlier. Could this be clarified? I have tried to find an official definition of "arrival date" but have come up empty. Renerpho (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. For example, with Cuba, in the current outbreak, the first three cases were reported to have arrived in Cuba on 9 March, to have been showing symptoms and been tested on 10 March and confirmed on 11 March. Which of those dates should be used ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The same for Sweden, where the first case arrived on the 24th, and was confirmed on the 31st.

I wonder if the solution is to introduce a new parameter first_confirmed and let editors decide for each article? Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that'd be a useful addition. Renerpho (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it: Can anybody tell me how to use the website parameter? I tried several ways but it remains blank. This template could benefit from some documentation! Renerpho (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a comma missing in the code?? Renerpho (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's been fixed, because it seems to work for me. Also, what *is* the official website for a pandemic? Trivialist (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Add Wikidata functionality to this template.

The idea is to allow the specification of a fetchwikidata argument which is passed to Module:WikidataIB, as is used in other Infobox templates.

This will look for properties of the current page outlined under disease outbreak (Q3241045) and fill the infobox using that data if not filled out already. Sigkell (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigkell — This would certainly be useful, but doing that takes time. Not saying it won't be done, but probably not now. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Official website showing as blank

Can someone check this? The website parameter is not showing its value. - SUBWAY 22:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin vs. First outbreak

@CFCF: Thanks for your contributions. You replaced parameter "Origin" with parameter "First outbreak". This might be confusing. "Origin" may refer to somewhere outside of the location of the outbreak (e.g., the origin of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States was Wuhan, a city outside of the U.S.), while "first outbreak" seems the same as "index case" (formerly "first case") and refers to somewhere inside the location of the outbreak. If the location of the origin is inside the location of the outbreak, the infobox should only use origin as the "location", and index_case may be used as the "time" to replace arrival_date(the current infobox of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic uses "Wuhan, Hubei, China" as both "first outbreak" and "index case", which appears redundant). I think that "origin" is a clearer term than "first outbreak", and suggest changing first_outbreak back to origin. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Jay — See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Origin:_"Unknown"_or_"Wuhan,_China"

The problem is that Origin — while intuitively logical has been (intentionally?) misunderstood, where some have suggested that it is Unknown, and not Wuhan. "First outbreak" solves that confusion. Another alternative is to use Original outbreak.

As for the main pandemic article, the first outbreak can be listed as the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: Many thanks for your discussion link. I think that "original outbreak" is clearer and better than "first outbreak" because the word "original" indicates that the place may be somewhere outside of the outbreak location. It would be great if you could change first_outbreak to original_outbreak. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So does this line need to be changed to Wuhan, China for every country ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I also agree this needs to be changed back to origin because "first outbreak" has multiple interpretations. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that origin does as well... Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay, Beardo, Aman.kumar.goel, and CFCF: The documentation page of this template: right now (last edit 1 April) says | first_outbreak= <!-- Indicates first outbreak globally-->. Do we have a decision on the interpretation? The parameter on the PL page just got changed to Wuhan again, and I was about to revert that and point to the template documentation in my edit summary. But the documentation right now says that the origin should be the global one - Wuhan - not Germany. If we want to avoid a bunch of useless reverts on a huge number of pages, we need a clear status quo ante and maybe an RFC or something similar if there's any controversy. I have no opinion either way myself. I didn't try tracing the edit history to see how old that definition in /doc is. Boud (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The proper term for the first local case is index_case = Boud. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I still don't agree that "first case" is the accurate representation. We need to be clear about the origin. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @CFCF: I think an end-of-line html template element <br />went missing there... ;) Anyway, back to the topic: here's a link to the archived discussion. I agree that an archive-pinned current-consensus section would be useful. I found the discussion quite quickly, since I've learnt to use the search function, but less experienced Wikipedians may be confused. I'm not going to debate either way here - I'm happy to go with the present consensus (global origin = Wuhan = until/if it changes. Next question: is there any objection to the value of first_outbreak being a link such as 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Hubei rather than just the city name link? What's important is info about the outbreak happening in Wuhan, not so much info about the city itself. Boud (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Should return back to origin. First outbreak is confusing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Avoid editing unless you know how to edit templates

• Ping! Linde Place, editing templates is not something that should be done unless you are very certain about what will happen. Breaking a template can break thousands of articles at once, such as how failed link can be visible on many places all at once. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• What is needed is a sandbox and a testcases page. I'll probably make these soon if noone else does, since I'm going to propose a missing parameter... Boud (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox outbreak/sandbox already exists, and is listed at the bottom of the template. Boud (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

TESTS

Can someone add category for number of tests? Sredina (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be very nice to have. Vaughan (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. 'Testing' (or tests completed) would be useful. Did this ever get implemented? 51.171.196.78 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Unofficial deaths parameter

It seems that the official COVID-19 death toll of 2535 in Wuhan is underestimated by a factor of 10. See The Telegraph for an estimate of about 59000 COVID-19 deaths in Wuhan, also Time magazine.

I propose the parameter label and data entries: | label22 = {{longitem|Unofficial deaths}} | data22 = {{{unofficial_deaths|}}}

In Poland, there are already 2 unofficial COVID-19 deaths compared to 20 official ones (I may be out of date on the numbers), which makes a 9% underestimate, not a 96% underestimate as seems to be the case in Wuhan, but there are plenty of reports of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes in Italy, which are unofficial because the system is overwhelmed, rather than because of deliberate censorship. Boud (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox outbreak/testcases, show the Poland case, and add some similar test cases below to check that the proposed update would not break anything. (I changed the label and data numbers to 22, to avoid clashing with an existing data21 parameter.) Boud (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay and CFCF: Just a ping to some of the people who seem to be more active here. If the Wuhan claims are true, then Wuhan/Hubei will soon be at herd immunity level (multiply 60k by 500 for the infection mortality rate), despite the official claim of a total of only 80,000 people infected in the whole of China. Unofficial numbers are going to be fuzzier than official ones, but there are several cases where the official numbers are suspicious, so both will have to be interpreted by epidemiologists taking into account expected biases. Anyway, I assume a day or two should be enough to consense on this (adding the optional parameter), depending on how controversial it is. This is my proposed version but feel free to improve it. Boud (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this proposal is that "unofficial" is per definition likely not WP:MEDRS. If we are to do anything it needs to allow for WP:MEDRS-compatible sources only. Possibly we could split it into confirmed_deaths and suspected_deaths. I am however a little hesitant, because it could still invite low quality sourcing.
A solution to call the parameter official_suspected_deaths is also somewhat clunky.
Others' thoughts?
Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, WP:MEDRS is to some degree more about interpretations of what people "with experience of the discussions" interpret from it rather than the actual text. And this case is not about a claim of the effectiveness of a medical treatment: it's a claim about whether people died from a given medical cause. I don't see any point to confirmed_deaths and suspected_deaths; just because a government ministry says that these are "confirmed" doesn't make that serious unless we have reliable, peer-reviewed evidence of that particular ministry (historically, and in terms of the present government) having a good record of providing confirmed data. In principle we should rate different ministries according to the peer-reviewed sources that judge the quality of those ministries' data, so strictly following the spirit of WP:MEDRS would mean that we reject, at least, all statistics from China and Iran... Being more strict, we would probably reject the data from most of the infoboxes as violating MEDRS, since we probably don't have sources on the reliability of many (or any?) of the ministries. Boud (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see the risk with the name unofficial deaths as the name of the parameter. Many people will look at the name of the parameter, or how it appears in the infobox, and not read any explanation in the footnote or on the Template /doc page. So the risk of "unofficial deaths" being interpreted as "anything goes" is real. Putting references doesn't stop the more casual editors: they're happy to update values and ignore the references. Ideas such as reliably_sourced_unofficial_deaths or independently_sourced_deaths come to mind, but both are long and neither of them sound good. Boud (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The U07.1 vs U07.2 ICD-10 emergency classification for COVID-19 deaths complicates this issue further. Or maybe helps? As of 26 March 2020, the Polish main infectious disease institute said that only U07.1 should be used - lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 deaths - and said nothing at all about U07.2 - clinically or epidemiologically diagnosed COVID-19 deaths (both are recommended by WHO). Combined with a policy of not doing a maximum number of lab tests, this risks making the U07.2 category big (but the data might not emerge quickly). Is it likely that other pandemics or disease outbreaks will have deaths subclassified into those that are lab-confirmed to be from the virus/bacterium (archaea are not pathogens, according to the lead there) and those that are not lab-confirmed but are clinically or epidemiologically diagnosed? I suspect that this could probably cover a big fraction of the unofficial deaths in the Polish case for this pandemic (so far). So it might be possible to have deaths and subsets of that, lab_confirmed_deaths and clin_epid_deaths. The names are not quite right though, because it's not the deaths that are confirmed in the lab, it's the virus/bacterium presence that is confirmed; and not everyone will be happy with the abbreviated clin_epid_deaths. Boud (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Boud — You point to several relevant problems here, including that there is concern of propaganda, even from sources where we ordinarily do not expect it. (Reliability of government estimates — A minor point is that some countries do not get their numbers from ministries, rather from government agencies. Sweden is a notable example where the agencies operate independent of the ministers and ministries.)
There is a good piece from the Financial Times: The mystery of the true coronavirus death rate (it shouldn't be paywalled for now).
The point being that multiple factors are at play here: Many countries aren't testing at scale, some because they wish to artificially suppress numbers, but some simply because they lack tests or capacity. Not testing at full and simultaneously accepting deaths that aren't confirmed by test could artificially inflate the death rate, provoking fear.
I think it's therefor better to look at historical examples such as the Black Death or Spanish flu, which show death estimates as ranges. (There is also a rather odd situation now where confirmed_cases reads "Confirmed cases: 500 million (estimate)" at Spanish flu.)
The reason I bring up the historical precedent is because it is very likely that the amount of people who died in COVID-19 will be subject to debate for a long time. As will the number of people who were infected, until reliable population surveys with antibody-serology are performed. Maybe best to split into 4:

• official_cases
• official_deaths
• estimated_cases
• estimated_deaths

But that is also imperfect, because in some cases you have official estimates which differ from the officially reported cases during the outbreak... It's a convoluted mess, it is… Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: That would probably solve the Spanish flu situation, so it might be good. It wouldn't solve the COVID-19 pandemic situation in the short term, where probably very few countries have estimates published by local or international people/groups. But Wikipedia is not news; as you say, debate about numbers will continue for years, if not decades. And huge numbers of people are playing with the data: models of estimated "true" numbers will probably be published, maybe even peer-reviewed, on a time scale of weeks or months. So my feeling at the moment is that the four-way split is the best option we have so far. Getting some more people to see if they can propose better ideas than we've come up with so far would be useful too, especially since any change would affect many pages. Boud (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's wait a little while, and I can introduce the changes maybe next week. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

How about a ICD_10 = parameter for the ICD-10 code or codes? The U07.1 and U07.2 codes for COVID-19 are emergency codes, and in principle will be shifted to other codes later on, but the motivation is that this is intended for software to be able to easily manage the transition. Just as WHO and other medical agencies should be able to use software to shift to updated ICD-10 codes, Wikipedia will be able to too. A complication here is that lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection cases are for U07.1 (by definition of U07.1), while COVID-19 deaths are for both U07.1 and U07.2. So probably better would be: deaths_ICD_10 = and confirmed_cases_ICD_10 = separately. Any objections? Boud (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as countries are doing things very differently, and a high risk of confusing readers (and editors) — I don't think we should mix in ICD-codes in the infobox. However, feel free to add the {{Medical resources}}, which allows for an ICD-10 code (or several). Just make sure to mark it out as provisional. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I saw that template. I guess that should be enough - people will have to learn to look for ICD-10 codes near the bottom of articles, if they haven't already. What precisely do you propose in terms of marking the code as provisional? If I put {{medical resources|ICD10=U07.1 (provisional)}}, then parsing this automatically will tend to fail because of the extra characters that only make sense to a human; and the link to the WHO page will fail. The idea of a temporary code is explicitly stated in the WHO guideline as something that is intended to be updated by "software". Sooner or later someone can write a bot or semibot that replaces obsolete temporary ICD-10 codes by their long-term ones. That would be more difficult if we add complicated strings such as " (provisional)". If I put {{medical resources|ICD10=U07.1}} (provisional) then the reader will not see "(provisional)" stuck to the code. (By the way, the Polish health agency responsible for the official policy added U07.2 as of 1 April; it said that the earlier omission was accidental, since WHO only published U07.2 a week ago.) Boud (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Website link is broken since this morning

Could somebody look into this, because it just says "Official website" and the link below it is gone. KittenKlub (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

Maybe it will noticed like this. All the websites do not show anymore after yesterday's edit. I assume that data23=website should be changed to data24=website KittenKlub (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC) KittenKlub (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I was working from an old revision, and so missed this request by you. I am marking this as answered. Apologies! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Websites still not showing... — GX, May 1971 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

GX, May 1971, I will leave a note at the admin board. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request – 12 April 2020

​ Please change

| header23 = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|Official website}} | data23 = {{{website|}}} to | header23 = {{#if:{{{website|}}}|Official website}} | data24 = {{{website|}}} to correct the error in the last edit made today (see the preceding section). Best I can tell, "data"s for "header"s are incremented by 1, unlike those for "label"s. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Usedtobecool:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hospital-related entries

Hi. I think it would be good if someone could add an explanation in the documentation about the criteria for filling in the various hospital-related entries: severe_cases, hospitalized_cases, critical_cases and ventilator_cases. I guess the last one is about how many people are using a ventilator (by the way, very specific of the current COVID-19 outbreak, while this template – I guess – is meant to be more generic), but of course this number is also part of the other three. "Hospitalized" is also well-defined. However the most confusing difference is between severe and critical cases: what is the criterion to discern the two? --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I came here to suggest something along the same lines...I've been updating Florida info and just noticed the hospitalizations in the infobox. In Florida, the "hospitalizations" figure released by the Florida Department of Health is defined as: “Hospitalizations” is a count of all laboratory confirmed cases in which an inpatient hospitalization occurred at any time during the course of illness. These people may no longer be hospitalized. This number does not represent the number of COVID-19 positive persons currently hospitalized. We do not have a figure for that information at this time. (source has no independent URL, click any county here, then "click here" link at bottom of box that pops up) I wanted to add a footnote to the infobox explaining this resembling the "suspected cases" footnote in the inbfobox. I added a normal footnote, but users not familiar with Wikipedia may not notice the [a] footnote link as it blends in with the references. It may need to be a parameter that can be defined since this figure's definition may vary by U.S. state and this template is used globally and other countries may compile statistics differently. AHeneen (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hospitalised, critical and ventilator were recently added by Keilana in what looks like a BOLD edit. I guess they needed it for whichever article they might have been working on; that doesn't mean everyone will have use for all the parameters, especially so when the documentation is incomplete/missing. My MO is to use the ones that fit best for the data I have and forget about the rest. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92, AHeneen, and Usedtobecool: The reason I added those parameters is that there's no good definition here what a "severe" case is, and most places are not reporting simply severe cases. Critical cases are those that require ICU level care, ventilator cases (which, yes, specific to respiratory pandemics but given the nature of this one and the fact that we will have future respiratory pandemics, seemed appropriate) are those that require a vent, and hospitalized cases typically include all hospitalizations whether ICU, step-down, or floor. I think most places are reporting cumulative hospitalizations and I would reckon it's appropriate to mention whether hospitalizations are current or cumulative in a footnote or somesuch. I did very much edit the template after a couple glasses of wine and totally forgot to add documentation. I'll...do that now. Best, Keilana (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: after swearing a lot, I think I've sorted it out. Please let me know if it's still incomplete - templates are certainly not my forte (but being bold absolutely is.) Keilana (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Keilana. Maine no longer reports hospitalization on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays (particularly critical, ventilator, and current hospitalized cases). It it worth adding a caption to highlight this? Thanks, Zanchi (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to use correct English spelling of 'Hospitalisation' as opposed to American 'Hospitalization'? Tried to use in my page and spelling seemed to break it ...causing it to not show in infobox 51.171.196.78 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Add new parameter for total_tested_cases, for an alternative of suspected case

In Malaysia our Health Ministry released this data and before that I had put into suspected case, but @Hulubalang2584: feels that it is not for that data. So I hope that a new parameter for this template. angys (Talk Talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this a parameter that we need? Debresser (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes angys (Talk Talk) 07:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully would like to see more opinions on this question. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have had problems with the "suspected cases" as well; my country publishes "RDT tests", "PCR tests", "in isolation" and "in quarantine".This is a general template and there are more than one kind of tests even with the current pandemic, so, something like "test_name[n]" and "test_name[n]_tests" pair might be best. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the use of the term “Official website”

I think that the entry "official website" for a pandemic is not adequate. The official website is linked to the government response maybe, but not to the pandemic itself. Perhaps changing it to just "website" could be a good idea, since then it would apply to a government website, or another data website. I indeed agree with what Tartan357 wrote in their comment here. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that it’s useful information and we should probably find a place for it, but it’s not as if the disease itself runs a website in each country. We have to keep the infoboxes relevant to the main subject of the articles, and avoid turning them into PSAs. I’d be happy to engage in discussion here if anyone disagrees. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I had been removing the “Official website” entry from many infoboxes (some pages have them, some don’t), but I’m glad you brought my attention to the template. I didn’t realize we had one so specific. Obviously, the change to the parameter should be discussed here, and not on each country’s page. I’m starting an RfC. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 11:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning for a change: Infoboxes are about the main subject of articles. Articles using this template are about the outbreaks themselves, which are medical phenomena. I think having such an entry politicizes the infoboxes inappropriately. Having an infobox titled “COVID-19 pandemic in (place)” with an “Official website” at the bottom is strange. Outbreaks are not government-sponsored events. A government website is just one of many sources of information about a disease’s status. The page National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic recognizes the difference between articles about government responses and medical articles such as those in which this template is being used. I don’t doubt the usefulness of the information for someone trying to handle their personal response, but our goal is to create an encyclopedia. These websites often contain instructions that are highly controversial, and I think we run the risk of using Wikipedia as a soapbox by including them in medical article infoboxes. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 11:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand the concern about government websites not necessarily being the best source of information (and being political problematic). Speaking of someone who is not a fan of the U.S. CDC, I am not enthusiastic about pointing readers to that resource. However, the only solution I can think of is to genericize the purpose of the "official website" or "website" parameter, and let editors resolve it at each article. The downside to that approach is the intractable disputes that would inevitably arise. Another potential option would be to included an "Official government website" link, and then an additional parameter for linking to another authoritative website. In the U.S., that might be something like Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center. - MrX 🖋 12:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: I like that. I think we could do without the word “official” though. We could have one parameter just called “government website” and another for various data websites like the Johns Hopkins one, maybe as a collapsable list. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 12:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rfc

Should these infoboxes contain the term “Official website,” if they are to contain a government website at all?  — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 11:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I understand the concern about "Official website" in this template. Perhaps something like "Website" would be better or, at the other extreme, "Official website for information about the pandemic from the the government's leading national public health organization". Whatever we call it, I think it needs to be retained and its purpose should be to link to the authoritative website from the government. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: I like the “website” idea (also proposed above by Ritchie92). It’s concise, and like Ritchie92 said, it allows us to include other data websites. I’m most concerned about the implication that the government is always the “best” source of information, which I think the term “official” implies in this case (the alternative interpretation would be that the disease itself is running a website, which is preposterous). I think dropping the word “official” is sufficient to take care of that problem. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 12:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I would be fine with that as well. I've made some additonal comment in the section above. - MrX 🖋 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the solution proposed above. Just remove the term "official". Optional supplementary link sounds good too. Shanze1 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I support removing the word "official", and then rely on each page's editors to input a reliable website for reference to the status and development of the pandemic. This website could then be either "official" (in Italy, for example, I would link to the Ministry dedicated website, or the National Institute of Health website), or not (e.g. using the Johns Hopkins data tracker).

The option of having more than one website (so "Website(s)") could also be good. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the parameter, as outbreaks don't have websites. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Exactly my reasoning. Removal would be the ideal outcome for me, too. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 01:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the parameter, as wesbites are not inherent qualities of disease outbreaks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:@Shanze1:@Ritchie92: What do you think about simply removing the parameter? We wouldn't have to worry about the intractable disputes MrX mentioned above, and I really just don't think that outbreaks have websites. Some people may find it useful, but it's certainly not encyclopedic, which would be the cause of such disputes over which websites to include. I'd like to point to Template:Infobox medical condition as an example; there are public health websites about diseases, but we don't include a parameter in the infoboxes for those, as they aren't inherent qualities of a disease. I think we could add a parameter to Template:Medical resources, which includes URL parameters specific to certain medical resources. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I would be opposed to removing it. I think is more helpful than not, and disagreements about what link is most appropriate can be worked out through normal dispute resolution. I think there would have to be a strong case for not using the the health department or disease control organization associated with the government of the state under which the pandemic is covered. - MrX 🖋 14:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with the rationale, "official website" is inappropriate. I would just have "government website", because that's exactly what it is. If you only put "website", you are implicitly saying that it is the official one, as you privileged it over the other websites. However, saying it is the government website is just a statement of fact, you are not making claims about its accuracy or legitimacy. Maranello10 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maranello10: What would you think about removing the parameter altogether, to mirror the encyclopedic nature of Template:Infobox medical condition? I was originally entertaining the idea of renaming the parameter, but I found Template:Medical resources, which could be a good home for it, as it includes a list of specific medical resource parameters to link to. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Yes that would be fine. Readers go to outbreak pages for information summaries, they don't need a special link to one particular source. All the statistics etc. that are sourced from the government websites are properly referenced throughout the outbreak pages anyway. Maranello10 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep All these reasoning behind wanting to remove it are genuine and I agree with them. I am ok with it removed, they're not encyclopedic for an outbreak page. But I would also want to keep it till the pandemic ends, since it's an ongoing disaster and sometimes such links may help - for up-to-date information, helplines and others. Shanze1 (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep or rename because its useful to have an easy-to-find link to the official government information. I don't know about all countries, but those that I've been keeping an eye on (eg, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago) all have official government sites set up for the pandemic information for that country. These sites include the dashboards which are generally the primary source for case information, which local news outlets use as their source. Removing the URL from the infobox just means we have to find a non-standard way to link to that site. If it's important to indicate that the website belongs to the government and not the virus, then "Official government website" seems like an accurate name Vaughan (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:@Ritchie92:@Fireman biff:@Shanze1:@Maranello10:@Debresser:@John Jones: To update everyone involved: it seems that the most popular solution right now is to remove the parameter, followed by renaming it. It seems, though, that much remains to be discussed. I think this comes down to what we’re trying to accomplish when building an encyclopedia. The primary argument against removal is that this information is “useful.” But infoboxes are for providing details inherent to a topic. The existence of a government response is not inherent to a disease outbreak. By including this in the infobox, I believe we are: 1) including unencyclopedic information and 2) using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a medical advice website or a host for public service announcements. Our goal is to document events. In this case, we are documenting the progression of a disease outbreak, and nothing more. That’s the crux of my argument - that its usefulness to people in responding to the disease is actually irrelevant. It simply isn’t a core component of the article’s subject. If we were talking about pages with titles like “Canadian government response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” then it would be a quality inherent to those articles’ subjects. But this is a template to be used on medical articles. Although unrelated to my concerns about the content being unencyclopedic, I think it’s also worth pointing out that we’re essentially endorsing government information unqualified (rather than using it as a reference for particular information), which, in the case of some countries, could be very unhelpful due to websites potentially containing propaganda. I think using such sites as references for particular information in an article is just fine, but we should be writing that information ourselves and citing it specifically. Wikipedia enables people everywhere to make decisions for themselves based on the most neutral presentation of the information available, and I think privileging single sources so heavily goes against that. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the "website" parameter on the {{Infobox outbreak}}. Any website about the outbreak should be listed on "External links". --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 11:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It serves as an easily accessible source for rapidly changing information, when it links to the official website of the front-line health agency responsible for handling the outbreak. This seems like a solution in search of a problem as they say. Where has it cause intractable problems. If there is any problem with deciding which one to link, you can build consensus on case by case basis, or exclude the parameter from the article in question. You can even change the documentation to say that use of website is optional, and discouraged when there isn't a good website to link to. Change to "website" if official is what makes people uncomfortable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:@Ritchie92:@Fireman biff:@Shanze1:@Maranello10:@Debresser:@Soumya-8974:@Usedtobecool: It seems there isn’t enough support to remove the parameter, but the consensus is that the “official website” phrasing is problematic. Two replacements have emerged: simply “website” or “government website.” “Government website” seems to have more support now, and I’m willing to support that, as well. I propose that we end this discussion with the consensus that “official website” should be replaced with “government website.” Are there any objections to that? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - "Government website" Shanze1 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support replacing the parameter with "government_website". --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• That's fine, Tartan357. However let's wait for an uninvolved closer to WP:CLOSE this RfC. To make it faster we can request a closure. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: That’s definitely an option if we can’t reach a clear consensus, but if the involved editors respond here then we may not need to request closure by an uninvolved editor. Per WP:CLOSE#Requesting a close, we’re encouraged to do that only if the consensus is unclear. Most RfCs can be closed by involved editors. I changed your entry to a bullet to match the others; feel free to change it back if you want. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 08:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As this option was already explicitly supported by MrX, Maranello10, and Fireman biff, I believe we’re just waiting on comments from Debresser and Usedtobecool. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 08:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support reconfirmed, for "government website" Maranello10 (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There could be cases where linking to some other websites, such as UN Health, would make more sense. "Government website" will preclude that possibility. To give one example, for COVID-19 pandemic in South Asia, which it looks like will be kept, SAARC has setup a website, which would make the most sense to include, but it doesn't make sense to link it as a government website. So, I would support "website", but not "government website". Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Confirming support for "Government website" or "Official government website". Usedtobecool has a valid concern. In cases where the article subject does not fall under a single government, the infobox parameter can simply not be used. Alternatively, a new generic "Website" parameter could be added to the infobox. - MrX 🖋 11:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Usedtobecool, infobox content is supposed to be standardized and should document key, meaningful, summarizing pieces of information. In some cases, such as your SAARC example, it would make the most sense not to include the website. Countries in South Asia run their own responses, which have meaningful impacts on their outbreaks. Most people have never heard of SAARC, and I doubt that they are a significant force in the South Asian coronavirus response. “Website” is just too vague a parameter. There would be endless debates over which websites merit inclusion. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 11:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, I was giving an example. Outbreaks are generally regional; staying within a country or becoming a global pandemic are the exceptions, not rules. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m just asking you to think about how difficult it would be to agree on which websites to include. That’s why I wanted the parameter removed, but making it for government sites removes that ambiguity and is a good compromise. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 11:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request

Please change the label for the website parameter from “Official website” to “Government website” per the above consensus (seven editors in favor, one opposing). Thank you. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 14:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a parameter number of clinical tests conducted in total

I would like to suggest adding and showing the total number of clinical tests conducted till date. In Wikidata there is a similar property available. So we can also fetch data from Wikidata.-❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was suggested above in the [[#Add new parameter for total_tested_cases, for an alternative of suspected case]] section. As I said there, I am not sure if this is a useful parameter. @Usedtobecool: also seems to have his reservations about this proposal. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would useful to include it since many official government sources include this stat. It also think it helps to give more meaning to the other stats since the amount of testing being done will impact the amount of confirmed cases and several other stats which are already in the infobox. So it helps in understanding how regions really compare. Vaughan (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah i agree testing would be good to have. What do we have to do to make this happen? I'm happy to help out. 51.171.196.78 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a parameter for population (number of people in area of interest)

a parameter field for the population would be helpful. As the template is used for worldwide outbreaks Spanish_flu and for smaller areas COVID-19_pandemic_in_Liechtenstein alike the reader is left alone with interpreting/scaling most numbers. (Well, all numbers except fatality_rate=, date=, arrival_date= and territories= ) --HeWhoMowedTheLawn (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Arrival date again

Could we change the name for the "Arrival date" which is vague. It could either mean the date the index patient arrived on a certain area or the date the infection of the index patient was confirmed. I suggest changing it to "Arrival date" to "First case confirmed"Hariboneagle927 (talk)

Adding a parameter for "de-isolation"

In Bhutan all positive cases are immediatly admitted to an isolation ward. After recovery or twice testing negative, they are not yet decalared recovered, but put into a further two weeks or more of "de-isolation" quarantine in a seperate facility, and then again tested twice more. Only after twice testing negative after this "de-isolation" period are they actually declared "recovered". I would like to request a paramater for cases in "de=isolation" - though there might be a better name for this. Thanks Chris Fynn (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Tests

Can a category named 'Tests' be added? This would be helpful to the reader in being able to determine a positive test rate just from the infobox. Qwerty325 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

abovestyle background color

The current background color for the name parameter is #FFCCCB, which is a light pink. I think that red/dark red would be more appropriate, since it conveys severity, and red is more closely associated with healthcare. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox outbreak/testcases, where I have made the background redder in the sandbox. It can't go much darker, because we would lose color contrast, which interferes with accessibility. The current sandbox has a contrast ratio of 5.5:1, which is accessible for bold text per this web site. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to Add More Fields

Someone please add the following fields: 1) Recovery Rate - Percentage of Patients Recovered 2) Samples Tested - Number of COVID-19 Tests carried out till date 103.238.106.77 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

For 1) I feel like this almost becomes an inverse duplication of "fatality rate". 2 is eh, but I suppose it could have its uses. I think it would benefit from a wider discussion, perhaps at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic or on a WikiProject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to modify Template:Infobox outbreak

Can someone here please adjust Template:Infobox outbreak (used, e.g., at COVID-19 pandemic) to 1) make ‘Suspected cases’ together with its double-dagger footnote optional and 2) add 'Infections' and ‘Suspected Infections’ as optional fields immediately before ‘Suspected cases’.

The rationale for this is, for COVID-19 per CNN, the WHO speaks in terms of ‘Infections’, not ‘Suspected cases’. This will be needed not only for COVID–19 but for any disease with largely non- and mildly asymptotic infecteds.

Given lack of clarity in sources to-date for COVID–19, per recent discussion 'Suspected infections' is requested in addition to 'Infections' (at least until sources clarify). Hence the request for both these optional fields. This is a well-warranted fix to prevent misperceptions.

Using the ‘Suspected cases’ field to indicate ‘Infections’ is very misleading. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ditto that this would be a useful item, particularly for diseases which are widespread and often asymptomatic (i.e., COVID-19 and influenza) where infection estimates are more widespread than estimates of suspected cases (generally considered early in an outbreak before confirmatory lab testing, and sometimes only counting symptomatic individuals). This is an active discussion on the COVID pages whether to use the suspected cases field for infection estimates. The 2009 swine flu pandemic uses the suspected cases field to report infections, and would be improved with the correct terminology. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

1) Suspected cases is already optional? If you don't fill in a value for the param, neither it or the footnote will show. Am I misunderstanding you here?

2) What's the difference between a "suspected case" and a "suspected infection"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thx … You’re correct re #1. Good q re #2. The key difference is between ‘cases’ and ‘infections’; the former have significant symptoms but many COVID–19 infections are asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic (see discussion of ‘Infection Fatality Ratio’ in the CDC’s Planning Scenarios). In my view, ‘Infections’ suffices, but included ‘Suspected infections’ as an option to accommodate MartinezMD’s concerns expressed in this discussion (see comment at 20:32, 7 November). Humanengr (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So, let me clarify: if I'm asymptomatic I'm a "suspected infection", but if I get a test and it comes back positive I become a "case". If I'm symptomatic I'm a "suspected case", and when I get a test I become a "case"? So what's an "infection"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

My reading: if I'm asymptomatic (or only mildly asymptomatic) and test positive, I'm 'infected'; if I'm symptomatic but not tested, I'm a 'suspected case'; if I'm symptomatic and test positive, I'm a 'case'. I included 'suspected infection' as an option because of MartinezMD's concern I only feel strongly about the suspected part since the numbers are large-scale estimates. In my view, estimates are estimates and don't need the 'suspected' qualifier. @MartinezMD, care to comment further? Humanengr (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. From an epidemiologic standpoint, they do use the term "case" in a general sense, applying not only to infections (how many cases of cancer, trauma cases, etc) so a change shouldn't apply to other types of diseases. Case, I think, would have precedence. With COVID in particular, the current WHO estimate doesn't appear strong at all, so I think "suspected" needs to be preserved, plus that term has a specific meaning in terms of "case" (see the definition). MartinezMD (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we can debate use of 'Suspected infections' vs 'Infections' for COVID–19 pandemic back on that talk page — and ask there for others' views. For now, though, this change request should include both of those as additions. If one of these options turns out not ever to be used, someone can eventually request deletion of that field. Agree? Humanengr (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, just realized that, for clarity, 'Infections' and 'Suspected infections' should have a footnote: "'Infections' are distinguished from 'cases' as some infections are asymptomatic or mild." Humanengr (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Deleting stuff from infoboxes tends to be harder than adding, and they can get out of control quickly. Hence I only tend to add new fields which are obvious or have a clear consensus. Personally, I'd like to see a more affirmative consensus on this, as the above still doesn't seem to make sense to me. Particularly, I'm not convinced the difference is so stark, & I'm not sure other participants thought it was. But every template editor has a different bar to what they find comfortable, so perhaps another TPER patroller will find this is add-able. I would suggest advertising discussion to the medicine WP / COVID taskforce talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thx … Will do as you suggest. Humanengr (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PR that a clearer consensus on the exact change would be nice, before additional fields are added. Please reactivate when ready — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change of wording

The last sentence of the infobox reads

"Suspected cases have not been confirmed as being due to this strain by laboratory tests, although some other strains may have been ruled out."

An IP user has proposed here that it ought to read:

"Suspected cases have not been confirmed by laboratory tests as being due to this strain, although at least some of the other possible strains may have been ruled out."

I support their proposal. Maproom (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom: I've flipped the order of "by laboratory tests" as suggested. The second part quite a bit longer and space in an infobox is at a premium, so do you still think it's needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thank you. That seems fine to me. I can't speak for the original proposer of the suggestion, but I'll add a note to their talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a spelling variation

Can someone please add the alternate spelling variation for "Hospitalized" as "Hospitalised" to the template, as is used in Australian and British English, in the same way we have this spelling option variant for Template:Infobox organization? Helper201 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Helper201, okay, should work now, just change the z to s in the parameter name. Frietjes (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Frietjes it works. Thank you! Helper201 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we get "Vaccinated" category/heading in infobox?

As vaccine rollout picks up pace worldwide would be nice to have a entry for "Vaccincated", "Vaccine doses administered", "% population vaccinated", "vaccines per 100k" or something like that to keep track of it for countries/regions going forward.

It's been four months since this was proposed by an user. COVID-19 vaccines are rolling out in many, many countries worldwide and it's quite strange that no template editor has replied or given a response to this proposal. Several users have already upvoted/supported this addition to the infobox. I want to know what's taking so long for a reply to this proposal.... Thank you. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• upvoted! absolutely! Let's do this. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• support - This would be helpful for an article like the 1947 New York City smallpox outbreak. That outbreak "only" had two deaths, and 12 confirmed cases, but it led to a vaccination of over 6,350,000 adults and children in less than 3 weeks. --HugoHelp (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - As the global population are getting vaccinated day by day due to the COVID-19 pandemic, adding this vaccinated categories will be extremely helpful as statistics and information. Right now, in the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland article, the vaccinated figures are just cramped onto the top of the infobox, which is the only way to add the figures in as there's no actual parameter(s) for this category on this infobox. I strongly agree to add this category into this infobox. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Many countries are publishing this information daily since about December 2020, but as of April 2021 the infobox doesn't have an entry for this important data point. There is now a "number of vaccinations (P9107)" Wikidata property too. For now I think I will follow Republic of Ireland's example to use with COVID-19 pandemic in Costa Rica. --Roqz (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done There is now a |vaccinations= parameter which applies a plainlist class, so you can copy-paste the list syntax in use e.g. at the Ireland article straight into |vaccinations= without needing to apply the class manually. User:GKFX^talk 20:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

bodystyle wikitext is invalid

bodystyle has the wikitext

{{if|{{{width|}}}|width:{{{width}}}||}}

This is not valid for Template:if

Desb42 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be

{{#if:{{{width|}}}|width:{{{width}}}}} (without the first pipe char) Desb42 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I tested it, and it worked, so I didn't proceed further. I should have been more careful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Add excess_deaths and confirmed_deaths.

For CoViD-19, excess deaths is now regularly being made available by several countries, and is often times several times more than the confirmed CoViD-19 deaths. (Please ping me if this is implemented.) -- Jeandré, 2021-04-23t05:52z

Add confirmed deaths instead of replacing the deaths parameter because of places that include unconfirmed deaths. -- Jeandré, 2021-05-09t09:58z

Bump. -- Jeandré, 2021-08-20t11:00z

Bump. -- Jeandré, 2022-04-14t15:24z

Adding organization/institutions

Is it possible to add the organization/institution of the government? See for example institutions at Template:COVID-19 pandemic. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

All aspects of government are in some way affected by and responding to the pandemic. For example, in the UK obviously the NHS (under the Department for Health and Social Care) is doing the healthcare aspect of the response, but the furlough scheme came from the Treasury. Some scientific advice comes from SAGE, etc; this would not be a well-defined infobox entry as it stands. User:GKFX^talk 20:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Test positivity rate

Hello. One of the important metrics is the test positivity rate. I propose adding it? Ear-phone (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Test positivity varies over time, I am unconvinced that a single value in the infobox would be useful, and there is more than one way to average it if you did. (E.g. average of e.g. daily values versus total positive tests over total tests, both of which would have some merit, how long do you average it over, etc) I think it is a value to be plotted on a graph not displayed as a single point. You could I think meaningfully quote one value for a phase of an outbreak e.g. the uphill portion of one wave, but not for a whole set of waves lumped together. User:GKFX^talk 22:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if averaged over a whole outbreak it would be a broad indicator of how good that region was at testing, but I think it’s a bit too dubious as a single figure to go in the infobox - I would reserve the infobox for statistics that give a clearer figure of how the outbreak went. User:GKFX^talk 22:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments @GKFX:. Some jurisdictions report the test positivity rate daily. This metric would be updated daily for those countries which have this data. I mean the test positivity rate is dynamic just like confirmed cases, deaths, vaccinations which already appear in the infobox. Ear-phone (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"First outbreak"

It should probably say "first reported outbreak" because it's very hard to tell if it's really first. For HIV it was first reported in California and NY, but it had been in humans since the early 20th century, similar for Marburg, and even when it seems likely we can't be 100% sure. I can't find a page using it for HIV, but this is possibly because it doesn't fit well. Irtapil (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No. of days in lockdown proposal

As there have been many regions and countries which have undergone numerous COVID-19 lockdown periods, it would be cool to have total number of days in lockdown as a metric. It makes it easier to compare the responses of different states/countries/regions.Neb (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Add template to category "Category:Events infobox templates"?

I would like to suggest adding the Infobox outbreak template to the category "Category:Events infobox templates". --HugoHelp (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fatality Rate vs IFR or CFR

"Fatality Rate" should either be updated to either reflect the current estimated Infection Fatality Rate or changed to say "Case Fatality Rate" or have both.

Fatality Rate in the dictionary is: "The number of deaths from a specific cause."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fatality%20rate

CFR is not an accurate representation of Fatality Rate, as it only includes the reported cases, not the total number of cases (including estimates of unreported cases). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.127.183 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is bad to calculate fatality rate based on case ratios as they are unreliable aggregates. IFR/CFR should be derived from a scientific review article, not unreliable government stats. AncientWalrus (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Title colour change

I suggest we change the color at the top of the infobox. Baby pink is an immature color, and since it’s about medical stuff, I think blue or white is more appropriate. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:6068:A2F8:2224:118 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion in 2020, but it did not result in a change. The sandbox has since been synced with the live template, so you can only see the difference if you look in the page history of /sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Adapt

Could the following changes please be made:

1 - drop the "‡Suspected cases have not been confirmed by laboratory tests as being due to this strain, although some other strains may have been ruled out." as this is not always relevant for non COVID-19 uses. 2 - For fungal disease outbreaks, I think we need a "Species" field.

I used this template at 2023 Mexico Meningitis outbreak, imperfectly. CT55555(talk) 23:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)